From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-62543-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 9545 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2009 03:16:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 9399 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2009 03:16:33 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 03:15:28 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KH800J00ZASMU00@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:15:24 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.23.114]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KH800KLIZPOJXU1@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:15:24 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 04:21:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA][Python] Change gdb.Value.address from a method to an	attribute.
In-reply-to: <1238275138.8292.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <ur60hkoml.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <orskllhfo3.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <20090310125945.GA4376@caradoc.them.org> <1236700079.11106.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <orzlftfhu1.fsf@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <1236710732.11106.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <m3hc1rluz1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1237771863.25721.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <m3bprs9lqg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1238275138.8292.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00653.txt.bz2

> From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:18:57 -0300
> 
> +@defmethod Value address
> +If the @code{gdb.Value} object is addressable, this read-only attribute
> +holds a @code{gdb.Value} object representing the address.  Otherwise,
> +this attribute holds @code{None}.
> +@end defmethod

The two uses of `gdb.Value' so close to one another and meaning two
different things might confuse the reader.  Is it really important to
make the point that the address attribute is itself a `gdb.Value'?  If
not, I'd suggest to rephrase:

  If the @code{gdb.Value} object is addressable, this read-only
  attribute holds its address.

Thanks.